3 ms·

Understanding that correlation != causation, the trend lines for obesity, diabetes and the use of HFCS is pretty alarming anyhow and should be investigated furt

by tomkin 13y ago

Understanding that correlation != causation, the trend lines for obesity, diabetes and the use of HFCS is pretty alarming anyhow and should be investigated further. Why do I have a particular distaste for HFCS? I remember a time when Americans would come to Canada and say, "where are all your fat people?" Our local newspapers would run stories about how Americans perceive our "indulgent" culture. You don't see those stories anymore. Now we're toe-to-toe in (childhood) obesity, diabetes. Data shows that the US started to use HFCS in liquids and baked goods as early as the 1970s. Canada on the other hand, HFCS has only recently become a regular ingredient in food. I know this is anecdotal and not in anyway scientific, but I have to wonder what other trend could have caused increases in caloric consumption at this magnitude. My understanding is that cane sugar is processed by every cell in your body and HFCS is processed by only your liver. The liver allegedly becomes overworked. If true, this domino effect has grave consequences.

tptacek 13y ago
How does that trendline coincide with the market adoption of, for instance, sweetened energy-dense liquids as a hydration replacement for water?
- tomkin 13y ago
  I couldn't say for certain, but I do see that as a threat as well. I will say, among the people I know who have diabetes, only 1 is known for having a taste for sweetened beverages. I think what you're saying plays a role, but how do we explain the many who don't drink sugar water on a regular basis? For me, it seems like there's only a few ingredients in our food that make it through a broad spectrum of Western diet/culture, and of those ingredients only 1 seems to be eligible.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    Americans consume, per capita, just a hair under 2 eight ounce servings of soda (presumably not including juice, which is morally the same as soda, energy drinks, and other energy-dense drinks) per day. But obviously, the distribution of that consumption is much lumpier than that, and is presumably biased towards people with metabolic syndrome.
3am 13y ago
It's the same molecules. Like everyone else has noted, 1 sucrose molecule = 1 glucose + 1 sucrose. The proportion of glucose to fructos is just slightly different in HFCS vs table sugar (55/42 or 42/53, versus 50/50). To your correlation/causation point, why don't you think that this is the result of having massive, inexpensive, and domestic sources of a molecule that makes the human brain want to eat more? Rather than some minor distinction in the ratio of the monosaccharides its composed of? Sugar is basically a drug with immediate gratification with only longer-term side effects to the health. Unless there are laws, companies that put the most of it in their products will 1) make more money because it's cheap and 2) sell more product. I don't know what happened in Canada, but I would guess either those interested in profiting even at the expense of public health either out-competed more ethical competitors or were able to weaken public health laws. Who knows, maybe the US public was the first target, and they went to the north only after our pancreases/adipose tissues were completely saturated...
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > It's the same molecules. No, its not. Sucrose is a molecule. Fructose is a different molecule. Glucose is another different molecule. > Like everyone else has noted, 1 sucrose molecule = 1 glucose + 1 sucrose. You mean 1 sucrose molecule is broken down at the first stage of its metabolism into 1 glucose and 1 fructose, rather than sucrose being an infinitely recursive combination of 1 glucose + 1 sucrose. > The proportion of glucose to fructos is just slightly different in HFCS vs table sugar (55/42 or 42/53, versus 50/50). Yes, the proportion of fructose to glucose in HFCS is higher than than the fixed 1:1 ratio that sucrose is broken down into (the exact amount varies, because HFCS isn't a fixed ratio). Since fructose and glucose have different effects (one notable difference is that there is at least some indication that fructose doesn't trigger the body's mechanisms for satiety while glucose does), this can be significant.
  - 3am 13y ago
    Dear god, how pedantic would you prefer that I be? It's a pain to type out monosaccharide and disaccharide all the time. Also, chemists will typically not use the term, "infinitely recursive". Outside of that, your point is totally valid. The location in the body where the enzymes that break the glycosidic linkage means that the absorbtion curve is different. But I was not addressing that point. Just that the body doesn't break them down differently, after they sucrose molecule is split in the small intestines.

by tomkin 13y ago

tptacek 13y ago

How does that trendline coincide with the market adoption of, for instance, sweetened energy-dense liquids as a hydration replacement for water?

tomkin 13y ago
I couldn't say for certain, but I do see that as a threat as well. I will say, among the people I know who have diabetes, only 1 is known for having a taste for sweetened beverages. I think what you're saying plays a role, but how do we explain the many who don't drink sugar water on a regular basis? For me, it seems like there's only a few ingredients in our food that make it through a broad spectrum of Western diet/culture, and of those ingredients only 1 seems to be eligible.
- tptacek 13y ago
  Americans consume, per capita, just a hair under 2 eight ounce servings of soda (presumably not including juice, which is morally the same as soda, energy drinks, and other energy-dense drinks) per day. But obviously, the distribution of that consumption is much lumpier than that, and is presumably biased towards people with metabolic syndrome.

3am 13y ago

It's the same molecules. Like everyone else has noted, 1 sucrose molecule = 1 glucose + 1 sucrose. The proportion of glucose to fructos is just slightly different in HFCS vs table sugar (55/42 or 42/53, versus 50/50). To your correlation/causation point, why don't you think that this is the result of having massive, inexpensive, and domestic sources of a molecule that makes the human brain want to eat more? Rather than some minor distinction in the ratio of the monosaccharides its composed of? Sugar is basically a drug with immediate gratification with only longer-term side effects to the health. Unless there are laws, companies that put the most of it in their products will 1) make more money because it's cheap and 2) sell more product. I don't know what happened in Canada, but I would guess either those interested in profiting even at the expense of public health either out-competed more ethical competitors or were able to weaken public health laws. Who knows, maybe the US public was the first target, and they went to the north only after our pancreases/adipose tissues were completely saturated...

dragonwriter 13y ago
> It's the same molecules. No, its not. Sucrose is a molecule. Fructose is a different molecule. Glucose is another different molecule. > Like everyone else has noted, 1 sucrose molecule = 1 glucose + 1 sucrose. You mean 1 sucrose molecule is broken down at the first stage of its metabolism into 1 glucose and 1 fructose, rather than sucrose being an infinitely recursive combination of 1 glucose + 1 sucrose. > The proportion of glucose to fructos is just slightly different in HFCS vs table sugar (55/42 or 42/53, versus 50/50). Yes, the proportion of fructose to glucose in HFCS is higher than than the fixed 1:1 ratio that sucrose is broken down into (the exact amount varies, because HFCS isn't a fixed ratio). Since fructose and glucose have different effects (one notable difference is that there is at least some indication that fructose doesn't trigger the body's mechanisms for satiety while glucose does), this can be significant.
- 3am 13y ago
  Dear god, how pedantic would you prefer that I be? It's a pain to type out monosaccharide and disaccharide all the time. Also, chemists will typically not use the term, "infinitely recursive". Outside of that, your point is totally valid. The location in the body where the enzymes that break the glycosidic linkage means that the absorbtion curve is different. But I was not addressing that point. Just that the body doesn't break them down differently, after they sucrose molecule is split in the small intestines.